A promising 19-year old college student shoots and kills his sister's fiancé - at her behest. What delivered this family to that moment? Director Iris Shim explores this in her excellent documentary, HOUSE OF SUH, now released on DVD. As she told me in an interview last March, when I first saw her film at the San Francisco International Asian American Film Festival, "intelligent people know how to solve problems without shooting somebody." But Andrew Suh did shoot Robert O'Dubaine on September 25, 1993, and he is now serving a 100 year prison sentence for it. His sister is also in prison.

Shim first met Andrew Suh in the 6th year of his sentence. A friend of hers had developed a pen-pal relationship with him through a church group, and they both went to visit him. He was "engaging, articulate, charismatic - we wondered how this person got into this situation." They became friends - he was almost an "older brother" to her at times. As she began filming the documentary and doing more interviews (including his relatives and O'Dubaine's brother), she began to take a more objective stance towards him. She still emphasizes, though, that this is "Andrew's story."

Most tragic in this story was how emotional wounds lay deeply buried in the psyches of all the family members.

The Suh family. Andrew as a baby in his mother's arms, and his sister Catherine next to her father.

These unexamined, unhealed wounds came out in volatile moments that forever affected their lives, and ultimately, led to tragic outcomes. The beloved oldest son of the Suh's fell from a roof at age 9 in Korea, leading to his death. The father angrily demanded his 40-something year old wife to bear him a son to compensate for the loss, leading to Andrew's birth with the use of experimental fertility drugs. Andrew even had a birthmark in the same position as the dead son. His older sister Catherine was displaced and despised by her father. The parents seemed unaware of the burdens they placed on her, even asking her as a 10-year old to translate their wishes to have a neighbor raise them if they should die. She did so, in shock, tears and fear. Probably for many reasons, Catherine began acting out, and drew further ire and extraordinary abuse from her father, even a death threat. Andrew was given special status, but also a heavy burden, particularly after his father died of cancer. His mother depended on him for many things, and had a way of demanding his emotional allegiance. When she dies, his allegiance shifts to his sister, a far more unstable source of nurturance.

Yet he pushed himself to do well in High School, becoming a leader and standing out as quite a memorable character. One of the few Korean Americans in his private school, he carried not only the burdens of being a child of immigrants and an orphan, but stoic, masculine coping skills that served only to keep up a façade of being a "tough guy." "Drink a beer, don't say anything. That's how I was taught to deal with things," says Andrew in the film.

What becomes urgently important for his identity is his standing as the last surviving male of the Suh line. The most important priority is defending the family honor, his mother's honor. This is particularly weighty given his immigrant, minority status. Andrew kills Robert, yes, at the behest of his sister; but also because he feels he must avenge his mother's death. The destruction of his family, the death of his mother - all put Andrew in "survival brain" or "fight or flight mode". If he doesn't kill, then he will in some way die. His mother will die again. He saw no other option than to shoot O'Dubaine. He justifies his actions with the thought that he is acting out a moral code.

Andrew certainly deserved a long sentence for what he did. Still, I'm disappointed that our legal system didn't do a better job of understanding his psychology and perhaps mitigating his sentence. His case is currently being appealed, but only because it is possible that his judge had ties to the victim's family, thus leading to potential bias.

I take many lessons from this documentary. First, the importance of early childhood relationships and trauma in shaping our trajectories. Second, the power of concepts such as "family", "tribe" or "nation" to ego-identities. An ego that is insecure and sees threats everywhere is liable to be volatile. Third, the importance of cultural and religious prohibitions against murder - they serve as affirmations to our better angels and ballast against our worst. Even as Andrew quotes the Bible's "Eye for an Eye" - I wondered how he would reconcile that with "Thou shalt not kill." Certainly, he still shows little if any remorse for what he did, perhaps because he feels so many losses too, too deeply.

I would have to say that within the Suh family and Andrew himself, there was a profound lack of the feminine principle of relatedness. Director Iris Shim gives us ample opportunity to relate to Andrew's wounded life. She draws his family's genealogy using the lines, squares and circles we're all familiar with. In a nice artistic stroke, all the other interviewees in the film are identified with similar lines. Perhaps she's suggesting that yes, we are all connected - to our families and to each other. In desperation and solitude, this is what Andrew forgot. Or tragically, never knew.

All i read here are excuses for killing another human being. You're saying someone who has a lousy childhood should have a parallel justice system to get lighter sentences?

It sounds like he knows right from wrong and committed premeditated murder. What he (and you) don't believe is someone taking responsibility for their actions, passing the blame to the past, parents, whatever.

In the end he needs to to "man up" and accept the sentence society placed on him for his actions. It's not like he should be surprised that he is being shut away for murder. And based n your post it sounds like he has nothing stopping him from committing murder again and blaming his past once again.

If you read my article closely, I say Andrew does deserve a long prison sentence.

What is tragic, though, is the fact that (1) no one offered any psychological assistance to this very distressed family early on when it could have saved lives, (2) Andrew's own psychological baggage was never unpacked when it could have saved a life (3) the legal system didn't address the psychological damage that Andrew faced. Not to excuse his actions, but perhaps to mitigate (slightly) the sentence. Mitigation might have taken a few years off at most, from what I understand.

Moreover, your question starts to poke at the fundamental goals of prison sentencing. Is it rehabilitation, or punishment? As a society, we seem to be focused on punishment these days.

What is the psychology of a stepmother who induces the death of her husband's children from a former marriage? If she cannot get them to die, then she independently - and also by using the father as an instrument - effects other kinds of destruction to the maximum extent that her cunning mind is capable of achieving.

He is Robert's younger brother, Kevin. Robert did have his faults. He went from a regular, backpacking, camping, witty guy to a 3 piece suit, cigar smoking, smarmy night club owner after meeting Cathy. Cathy gave me the cold creeps. She always wanted me to meet her for drinks and shopping. I was running out of excuses why I couldn't go. I will say, after a year or so of Cathy's 'fast life,' Robert became a homebody, spent quality time w/Andrew, watching movies together, goofing on them, working on home building projects, et al. Andrew was pleasant but gave the impression of a cipher. It's no wonder Cathy brainwashed him into believing Rob killed their mom. I've since spoke to classmates of his at Loyola, they describe him as a crude, 'gansta' wannabe bully. If people want to feel pity toward Andrew, feel it because he was the ultimate Zelig, blank slate, patsy. He took on any role a situation called for. There was no 'there' there. Cathy and Rob had been dating a short time when Mrs. Suh's murder occurred. Believe me, Rob was too gentle and especially too lazy to take on an assassin's job like that. She had been stabbed so, so many times. It was obviously done w/fury. Rob's main attitude toward Cathy and her drama, tantrums. was affectionate indifference. Rob's murder occurred because he was growing a conscience, wanting to break off w/Cathy, get away from her drugs, partying, sexual escapades. She felt he knew too many secrets. BTW, the judge in the Divane family that supposedly used his influence on Rob's trial didn't give a thought to my husband's family. They were the poor side, the Catholics that divorced, stuck at the worst table at family events. I think Iris treated my husband w/respect, the film is well done. But please know your pity is misplaced if you direct it toward Andrew.

I so appreciate your taking the time to write so thoughtfully, and I'm extremely sorry and saddened by your loss. Knowing only the film, my take is that this was a tragedy on so many levels; I took away not pity for Andrew, but rather a grave understanding of how unresolved family wounds and psychological issues inevitably cause suffering.

Knowing Andrew since 5th grade and on through all of High School, I can confidently say that after watching the documentary that Andrew still knows how to charm people into doing his bidding. Andrew was a bully since grammar school. In High School he had quite a knack at picking out weak individuals and abusing them physically and emotionally. His imprisonment is not a surprise to the people who really knew Andrew. If released, I believe he'll be worse than what he was thanks to two decades in the system. He should stay locked up.

Thanks for reading and commenting. To my understanding, there's no chance Suh will be released, nor am I advocating for that. The documentary made a case that there were mitigating factors that could have somewhat lessened his sentence - but I believe he's serving several life sentences, so it would likely not have made that much difference. However, I'm not a legal expert.

I read your article after seeing the documentary. The sister's sociopathy was evident from the start, but his didn't reveal itself fully until the end. From what I observed, both suffered marked dissociation along with severely disordered personalities -- both a natural result of severe early trauma.

A fascinating study in the effects of tectonic psychological strains during our foundation years.

The question of societal response and responsibility is always troubling. One must be held accountable for what one does, else none of us can be. And one must be constrained from future harm. That's a given. But prisoners must be released back into the mix, hopefully with suitable skills. How we do that says a lot about our intelligence as a species.